Headlines

Erika Christakis

Is Paula Broadwell being subjected to a double standard?

The focus on the hard-driving personality of Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ partner in the affair, reads like a cartoon version of a successful woman getting her comeuppance. Broadwell was “hardly shy,” “a life-long high achiever” and “prolific” in social media. Early coverage stressed her self-promotion as an author on the talk-show circuit and her lack of journalistic credibility (conveniently glossing over her military background and graduate degrees). Never mind that it’s standard practice for authors to try to sell their books. Her stellar résumé and striking physique were held up as exhibits in a case for a suspicious history of unseemly ambition. …

The corollary of the conniving female harpy, of course, is the feckless male dupe entrapped by forces that are somehow beyond his control. Colleagues and press jumped right on board. Petraeus “let his guard down” with Broadwell, we were helpfully informed. President Obama issued a statement, saying, “My thoughts and prayers are with David and Holly Petraeus,” as if the long-married couple had been jointly victimized by an unexpected calamity. Unnamed staffers whispered about Broadwell’s unprecedented access to Petraeus in tones that suggested, if not Mission Impossible–style code-breaking powers, a slightly nefarious ability to get her way. Left unspoken was the fact that Petraeus — one of the most powerful and respected people in the world — was the one conferring the access.

If one one happened to catch one of Broadwell’s tv appearances promoting the bio, she appeared to be cloyingly sweet on her subject. Now, its not too difficult to figure out why, but at the time it was odd. Why would Petraeus would need to sign-on to such a hagiographic project? His reputation was considered stellar. Why didn’t anyone in the media put two and two together?

If one one happened to catch one of Broadwell’s tv appearances promoting the bio, she appeared to be cloyingly sweet on her subject. Now, its not too difficult to figure out why, but at the time it was odd. Why would Petraeus would need to sign-on to such a hagiographic project? His reputation was considered stellar. Why didn’t anyone in the media put two and two together?

Regarding her impressive resume, why did she need a ghost writer?

Vera71 on November 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Everyone in the loop knew. They just didn’t consider it a big deal or had mistresses of their own.

Why would Petraeus would need to sign-on to such a hagiographic project? His reputation was considered stellar. Why didn’t anyone in the media put two and two together?

Regarding her impressive resume, why did she need a ghost writer?

Vera71 on November 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM

When Broadwell said in an interview the book was not a hagiography she used a hard “g” in “hag” and I’d always thought it was a soft g like “j” so I looked it up and it looks like a hard “g” is preferred, but, what is everyone else’s experience on the soft “g”? Is it acceptable or rather quite obscure?